Legal code: Difference between revisions

196 bytes added ,  24 December 2020
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
Or  
Or  


  <nowiki>{{subject|everyone}} {{commitment|must}} {{action|pay}} {{conjunction|or}} {{action|deliver}} {{object|obligations in Confirm}} {{condition|per Agreement}} </nowiki>
  <nowiki>{{subject|all}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{commitment|must}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{action|pay {{conjunction|or}} deliver}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{object|obligations in Confirm}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{condition|per Agreement}}</nowiki>  


The point being that “agrees to”, “will”, “shall”, “must”, “is obliged to”, “shall be obligated to”, “shall unconditionally be obligated to” and so on all code back to “<nowiki>{{commitment|must}}</nowiki>”.
The point being that “agrees to”, “will”, “shall”, “must”, “is obliged to”, “shall be obligated to”, “shall unconditionally be obligated to” and so on all code back to “<nowiki>{{commitment|must}}</nowiki>”.


Ideally a lawyer would  be able to code from principles.
Ideally a lawyer would  be able to code from principles.
I don’t think you would need to describe the complete set. Even if you only had  subject, object, commitment it could reduce a lot of crap.


So the question is, is this possible? Is this Bertrand Russell folly? Esperanto?
So the question is, is this possible? Is this Bertrand Russell folly? Esperanto?